Report 751
Report #751 Skillset: Starhymn Skill: Angelichost Org: Cantors Status: Rejected Jan 2012 Furies' Decision: We do not like the suggestion to make this ability move a target. Problem: AngelicHost currently provides no real tangible benefit to our offence given its cost. The skill has little synergy with anything, really. Because of this, I propose the following: Solution #1: Completely remove the current effect from the skill and replace with a summon type skill: STARSONG CALL BECKON ON (By summoning an angelic host, you can beckon your enemies who are in adjacent rooms to you.) - This will cost 0p, but will be on a 4s Eq. It will be a single targeted action, respecting all the usual summon resists. Additionally, the target being off bal/eq, prone or shielded will stop this. This skill should ignore deafness for obvious reasons. Solution #2: Alternatively, the skill will respect deafness. Should the target be deaf, the beckon will still go through, but on a 2 second delay. Solution #3: As above, but give it a cost of 2p. For this, I would like to see the skill bypass shrine distort, deafness, monolith and block. Player Comments: ---on 1/5 @ 00:43 writes: I always thought it would be neat if Cantors could sing someone back to life. That might be a good use, if it retains a proper power/stanza cost. Overall, I agree with the problem. The angel powers are unwieldly and restrictive to the point that they are mostly useless. (Minor caveat for guardian angel after the most recent change- it can be nice while bashing) As for the beckon related solutions, I don't have a particularly strong opinion, save that it is mostly a group skill, and Cantors are hardly starved for those! ---on 1/5 @ 00:56 writes: Yes, whilst I do find myself agreeing on the group aspect of your comment, the same could certainly hold true for any of the bard guilds. That said, I am also of the mind that there is (an albeit small) chance that this could have use in 1 vs 1 combat also. Suffice to say, the skill in its current form is definitely warranting of some attention. My proposal here seems to fit in well and provides a little more cohesion into a Cantors offence. The power costs for a glamourist certainly compound the issue and giving us that small chance and "bump up" so to speak will go some way to alleviating that, I feel ---on 1/5 @ 09:39 writes: I would be against solution three. But I would also think it appropriate for a minor power cost for a successful beckon, since I'm assuming there will be no need for buildup actions for the song/beckon to function, otherwise I'd be okay with Solution 1 or 2 if it is adjusted in terms of power cost. ---on 1/5 @ 09:51 writes: Presumably it would have the same requirements as AngelicHost, though perhaps not rewind stanzas? As Akui, I agree with the problem, the angel abilities are indeed unwieldy. I don't particularly see any problem with the idea either, as long as: 1) It consumes balance to attempt this, no chainyank esque spamming until they enter. 2) It respects magical movement stoppers, 3) It has a power cost. Bard combat revolves around staying put (in octave/Col.Mael.) and a pulling in skill that dosn't take significant setup (as CairnLargo's pull does) isn't something to be taken lightly. In addition, targeted beckon is stronger then group beckon, as you are isolating a single member, with forknoweldge of that group member's identity. So, Solution 3, but no going through distort/monolith. ---on 1/5 @ 12:17 writes: To quickly address: The skill will -always- require and consume a balance, whether it succeeds or not. As for the power cost, you suggest it would take power but not bypass distort/mono. If the ability was indeed given a power cost, I would find myself bringing up similar skills: Angel beckon (0p), Rad (0p), Ninukhi (0p), the list goes on. - Given that you wish a power cost to be associated with it, I would like some form of benefit associated, really. That said, your comment about CairnLargo indeed holds merit, although the skill does a lot more than simply beckon. ---on 1/5 @ 12:35 writes: I would be happy about a small power cost if solution 3 was not permissable. 1p for a successful beckon with a 3s eq given the power cost. Would that fit in with the general consensus? (Although I would still seek solution 3, personally.) ---on 1/5 @ 15:20 writes: As I said, beckon is a group calling skill and is therefore less power. Rad is not a pulling skill, it's a random movement skill, and runes have a material component cost. Ninukhi has different mechanics involved and is blocked by other things (iirc), as well as not being a skill possessed by a class focused on bunkering down. It's more important for the bard combatant to be able to pull into the room then it is for a monk. And anyways, though Ninukhi's extremly bug- like ability to be spammed was fixed via that report, I don't necessarily think that the consensus (among Envoys at least) is that it's balanced. Balancing against a similarly aspected skill (Beckon) and refining the amount of control on it (improving it) requires (in my mind) some sort of tradeoff. The most obvious one here is a minor power cost. More exceptions to distort without changing how distort itself works is what I'm mostly wary of, though. ---on 1/5 @ 15:33 writes: You make a fair argument there. I guess I would not be adverse to it having a 2? power cost. (This will still retain the 0p/4s eq cost upon failure, though.) - Despite how this might outwardly look, this was never intended to be a "spammable" ability like certain others. The main thing that I am wishing to avoid here is us having yet another prohibitively expensive skill in place of one that is simply getting no use whatsoever for similar reasoning. Does that cost sound more on par with your train of thought? ---on 1/5 @ 17:32 writes: I'm not sure this is the best direction for a change. In group combat other guilds can do this and in 1 v 1 it would be pretty situational. I really think you could get more bang for your buck with a different idea. Go for something with max synergy or some kind of signature ability which is kinda what you are looking to replace. ---on 1/5 @ 19:04 writes: Oh, and it would of course bypass distort if you were a DEFENDER. As Beckon does. Just not in other people's territory. ---on 1/5 @ 19:56 writes: That I can live with, aye. (Defender.) Thanks for the feedback and valid reasoning. ---on 1/11 @ 20:21 writes: I have no problem with the suggestions presented, but I agree with Akui's sentiments